The Mono project has released Mono 2.0. As most of you will know, Mono is an open-source implementation of Microsoft's .NET framework for Linux, Mac OS X, Windows, and other operating systems. The 2.0 release comes packed with new features, the main ones being the compiler upgrade to C# 3.0 with support for LINQ, as well as the inclusion of ADO.NET 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and System.Windows.Forms 2.0. The release notes detail all the changes and new features.

Yeah, especially when individuals aren't legally responsible for patent infringements (real or imagined) in products they have "purchased".

Unfortunately, AFAIK that is not what the law says.

If a company can show a patent infringement in a product, or even show a cause to believe there is a patent infringement, then the patent holder can force the alleged infringing product to be removed from the market.

That means being able to recall products that are out in the market, in use. Owned by ordinary people who bought them in good faith.

Fortunately, this works two ways. If Microsoft actually tried this against Linux users, then Linux (in the form of the Linux foundation and the SFLC) would counter-suit, and allege that windows infringes patents held by the Patent commons and the open Invention Network. The counter-suit would just as easily be able to force people to stop using Windows.

Clearly, that isn't going to happen. Therefore, Microsoft will not sue.

However, it would appear that Microsoft are still very interested in being able to make threatening noises about the possibility that they would sue (just as they have already done for many a year now).

"The easy thing by far to do then is to avoid Mono like the plague, and don't use SuSe Linux.

Personally, with most GNOME distributions now including Mono applications (Tomboy notes, Banshee, F-Spot, Beagle search et al) by default, I'd make it even simpler and just use a KDE distribution.

Yeah, because there's just SO much precedent out there of Microsoft suing individuals or other companies for patent infringement. "

It is not the suing, I believe, that is Microsoft's interest here. Linux would just sue back, and no-one would win.

I would hazard a guess that Microsoft's primary interest is to keep alive the ability to make threats against Linux users (without any actual action), so as to be able to keep up a pretense that there is some legal liability in using Linux.

If so, then why the hell does it matter if people use Mono, which is fully open source?

Look, big software companies like Microsoft, Apple, Novell, IBM, Sun, etc. will never start a patent infringement lawsuit on their own. In fact, they are always the target of patent lawsuits, but they never sue themselves.

The reason is simple. All of these big companies infringe on one anothers' patents, and they know it. Red Hat infringes on Microsoft patents, Microsoft infringes on Apple patents, Apple infringes on IBM's patents, and so on, and so forth.

It's like a house of cards. As soon as you take one card out, the entire house collapses. It would set s precedent, triggering a chain reaction of various big software companies litigating against one another over patent infringement. That, they really don't want. The reason Microsoft and similar companies don't sue individuals and smaller companies is that they KNOW full well that they themselves infringe on countless patents of other competitors.

The simple and obvious conclusion is that there is absolutely ZERO need to be afraid of patent infringement lawsuits from these big companies, and people saying that users and distributors of Mono are in danger of being sued by MS are plain old trolls.

Yeah, because there's just SO much precedent out there of Microsoft suing individuals or other companies for patent infringement.

I know people like to dredge up this one time and again, but it has been debunked so many times it is ridiculous. The point is, they don't have to sue anyone. It doesn't mean to say that they can't though. Even then, there is still enough behind how the ECMA manages the whole situation that has left the legal situation far from clear regarding an open source implementation of Mono not distributed to Novell's customers. Why bother when there is other open source technology that doesn't have that explicit milestone around its neck?

Why on Earth do you think Microsoft signed a deal with Novell and then sent out letters to Novell's own customers saying "Don't worry if you use open source software and Novell. You're safe with us [but we can't vouch for you if you're not]".